- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
“Asked how many members of the House of Reps there were, Stein guessed 600-some before hosts corrected her.”
You must log in or register to comment.
If they were serious, they would be building Party infrastructure down ballot. Taking over state houses and local government positions. Doing an every four Year presidential run doesn’t help in the slightest. The most progressive messaging that has actually made some semblance of an impact is Bernie.
It’s not about getting seats at the moment. With the two party system that’s not a pragmatic use of resources. Until we have ranked choice voting, they seem to believe the best use of resources is what they are doing. Give Dems an ultimatum to pull further left or get spoiled.
If Jill Stein and The Green Party were serious, they would advocate for progressive policies from within the Democratic party, push for ranked choice voting in each state, and run for local elections.
There is a ton of work that needs to be done before a third party is a politically viable strategy, there is no way Jill Stein isn’t aware of that.
Wouldn’t a serious politician not being paid by the Russians actually, like, fucking know that?!
Especially as she’s actually run for President twice before! It’s like coming into the same job interview multiple times and giving worse answers each time.
Why are Democrats afraid of a candidate stealing votes if the opposition party is doing worse with every election?
No one is “afraid” of Jill Stein. What they’re afraid of is a GOP and Russian misinformation campaign disguised as a third party presidential campaign causing chaos in an election with likely extremely close margins of victory.
The idea that anyone is afraid of Stein is hilarious by the way. The 74yr old perennial candidate whose only elected experience is partial representation of a district in a municipal legislature for a town of 30k people? Yeah, not a serious candidate - because if she was, you’d hear something from her in between pointless presidential campaigns.
It’s sad that this has been repeatedly explained to this user, and yet without any substantive rebuttal, they persist without any evolution of their view.
Isn’t that a bit… Odd? Perhaps suss? Weird?
They’re not asking the question in good faith, and it’s pretty obvious.
Look at the math.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-president.html
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president
Two last elections were won with 1 or 2 percent of certain states swinging one way or another. 1% of people voting Green in a swing state can absolutely hand the election to the fascists.
Two last elections were won with 1 or 2 percent of certain states
Greens and Libertarians heavily underperformed in those states relative to the national vote.
Folks who clung to those parties had no interest in voting except as a protest against the duopoly.
Thing is, research organizations have and do survey the public about this. A LOT of pollsters were surveying the public about RFK during this round.
A non-zero amount of 3rd party voters always say they’ll move toward Trump or Harris depending which 3rd party option falls off the pick list.
And when races are tight enough to be decided by a few hundred or a few thousand votes, a small non-zero amount of people can be the difference.
A non-zero amount of 3rd party voters always say they’ll move toward Trump or Harris depending which 3rd party option falls off the pick list.
The biggest 3rd party margins are in states with firm single party majorities. Kicking RFK Jr has a very different consequence in California or Texas than Pennsylvania or Michigan.
And when races are tight enough to be decided by a few hundred or a few thousand votes
It’s easier to simply kick ideologically adjacent rivals off the ballot than broaden your base or improve your voter outreach.
The real problem democrats are having is that Jill Stein leads Kamala Harris with Muslims in these three battleground states. And the assumption is that if Stein simply surrenders to Harris and walks away from the campaign, those Muslim voters will collapse into the Democratic Party.
But the assumption fails to address why these communities are polling at historic numbers for an out-layer candidate. Was Stein a rhetorical mastermind who could rally hundreds or thousands of votes to her quixotic campaign? Or is there something about the current Dem administration that Muslims have a problem with?
If you click into the state by state results that I posted, the click in on swing states and view full results, you’ll see that some of the razor thin wins of the past would’ve flipped if a candidate got a hair of a 3rd party’s votes.
That’s why both the GOP and DNC have been worrying about 3rd parties this season.
Gerrymandering. Next question.
Spoiler Effect, too!
Gerrymandering only has to do with US Congressional House districts. Though I take it your point may be that the EC and Gerrymandering are propping up a dying party., which is absolutely true.
Bonus: Weevil ran away from a discussion we had when they tried to claim Democrats were blocking DC statehood because they, “didn’t want a black state.” when in fact it has always been Republicans to blame for blocking it. lmfaowtf360bbq.
Exactly. In a fair and independent contest, the concept of a “spoiler” wouldn’t really exist. But given that the Presidency basically gets decided by a few million voters who live in swing states’ contested districts, it turns out it’s really easy for a niche candidate to derail the more likely ones just by trying to appeal specifically to them.
Nothing you can do about people like that shitting on your doorstep and running away other than to hose it down and hang up a sign that says “Please do not shit on porch”. We live in a post-truth society.
Framing this as only a small group of voters in swing states is stupid. No candidate can win with just a few million votes scattered across a handful of states.
You are taking something very minor and turning it into a major problem. Its like saying Hilary would have won if not for the last minute news reports about her emails or whatever it was, when she lost because she didnt appeal widely enough to the american people, and carried an awful attitude while doing it.
You’re not getting my point. I’m not saying someone can win with just a handful of voters from swing states, I’m saying that someone can stop another candidate from winning by courting those voters. Hence, a spoiler.
Add in actual prevention of people to cast a vote. Voter ID laws, closing polling stations in specific areas, trying to prevent mail-in voting, actively protesting in voting areas to scare away voters.
lmaowtf360bbq
Ohhhh this brings me back…
I’m not afraid of shit. Jill Stein has proven she’s anti-science with her stances on GMOs and vaccines. She’s proven she’s politically illiterate and unfit for office by not being able to answer simple questions about our government. And she’s proven she’s a Russian asset by meeting with Putin officials and encouraging people to vote for Donald Trump.
Herp derpty derpy derp derp herp derp derp?
Cool story bro.
Because the spoiler effect is the result of geometric proximity, not the strength of candidates.
Because doing worse doesn’t mean they’re not still an imminent threat to our democracy.
If the Greens are an imminent threat to democracy, your democracy is already dead.
Don’t be obtuse.
There are 10x more non-voters than Green voters in any given election. If you abolish the Green Party, all you’re doing is feeding those Green voters into the non-voting demographic.
Why would any Green vote for a party that believes their organization does not have a right to exist?
If you abolish the Green Party
Don’t be obtuse.
all you’re doing is feeding those Green voters into the non-voting demographic.
What’s your proof of this claim?
I guess maybe you’re not being intentionally obtuse.
The comment was about why democrats worry about losing to the Republicans due the green party taking votes because the Republican party is weakening.
I was saying that the republican party weakening doesn’t mean they aren’t still a threat.
No party wants to lose voters. No company wants to lose customers. No house of worship wants to lose congregants. It’s that simple; I believe.
No billionaire wants to lose profits
Is not problem. She received excellent education from People’s University of Harvard, near the warm-water port city of Boston in Massachusetts oblast. Do not worry about these silly details.
/s because internet
That’s a bit disturbing - how can someone with so little knowledge of how the system works change it without breaking it?
The Green party has some good positions that I’d be willing to support (such as having the US join the International Criminal Court), but at the same time I sense a big change from the days when Ralph Nader was the candidate.
Any Lemmy Green Party shills trying to convince people to vote for Stein over Harris want to weigh in?
Anyone?
The most notorious of them blocked me, so they’re not even seeing this. :)
Ha, you know what… I think same here.
yeah where is /u/universalmonk@lemmy.world when you need him?
Make sure our local Lemmy Green Party Propagandist sees this.
He blocked me, so doubt he’ll see it :P
Sinema+Gabbard vibes.
Stay far away.
"The one thing AOC has done that you haven’t is win some elections.”
Goddamn.
She appears incapable of recognizing reality, and we don’t need another candidate like that. By staying so obstinate her votes will likely go to Trump. If she doesn’t understand that political reality, she shouldn’t be anywhere near a general election.
A normal person would learn from their multiple failures, but not Stein.
Giving her the benefit of the doubt that she isn’t a Russian agent, if she doesn’t understand how the Electoral College works, then it makes sense she doesn’t see herself as a spoiler and a waste of a vote. Clearly in the past 20ish years, she must have come across FiveThirtyEight and, so even a guess of 538 would be somewhat reasonable. 600 just shows lack of reasoning skills and/or knowledge of how the electoral college is made up.
Insert photo of Jill Stein dining with Putin and various other fascists.
I never read much about her but I’m really shocked at this level of ignorance.
The more you look for it the more you recognize that a lot of the people in charge of politics (and business for that matter) aren’t smart or knowledgeable or even master strategists, they’re just the sort of person who skirt through life through some combination of charisma and utter willingness to say whatever it takes to please the people who can advance their career.
Like you expect the dumb shit they say to be an act by a keen mind who understands politics deeply and is manipulating the public into advancing their interests, but they’re often just fucking idiots with no principles who whenever they’ve been stymied due to their idiocy just let it slide off their back and move on to a new path with utmost confidence.
Jill Stein isn’t going to slink away into the darkness after a public demonstration of political ignorance for a lady whose whole public persona is supposed to be about politics, she’s just going to forget about it and keep the scam going. Not knowing the basics of government isn’t going to stop her from saying she knows how to fix the problems with government. Not being on the ballot in states is unimportant for whether it sounds good to her in the moment to say they can win in all 50 states. They’re all just unimportant “facts” and you can just keep talking and most people will forget or not know that you’re an idiot.
Jill Stein may be an idiot politician with laughably unrealistic positions and a totally unworkable take on foreign policy (even dining with Putin) but she’s also a physician who practiced internal medicine for decades.
She’s not an idiot in general. I think she’s just unbelievably naive about people and their motivations.
Ben Carson was a (by all accounts excellent) brain surgeon.
I’m sorry, but that man is stupid.
Brains are weird, man. I work in a STEM field, but I had 3 or 4 semesters of University before declaring my major, and therefore I was able to get a much more well-rounded education than my colleagues, and I will tell you: It shows. Big time.
Lots of people who are great at what they do, and when it comes to their one very specific, silo’d, expertise, they’re brilliant.
But in terms of general intelligence, rationality, ability to think critically in a novel situation, etc? Not bright.
Then there’s the old (true) joke: What do you call someone who graduated at the bottom of their class in medical school? Doctor.
I have worked for a university for over 25 years so I have seen in all. My first wife, who also worked for the same university, worked in a computer lab in the psych dept and they would have the most domain specific intelligent people with no common sense whatsoever. Her and a colleague used to joke about the PhD students “I bet she runs with scissors”.
It’s honestly a real shame. STEM careers are obviously extremely important, but we are doing students a major disservice by limiting the scope of their education so much. Maybe these degrees should be five year programs…
Did Ben Carson attempt to do surgery on himself? Otherwise I can’t explain at all how dumb he was. Wow! Thanks for the example.
Probably after he got shot by his best friend and the bullet ricocheted off his belt buckle and hit his friend killing him (wasn’t that the story? Lol I’m not going to bother looking it up. If I got any details wrong, the reality was at least just as stupid).
A specialist in one field isn’t necessarily adept in another, and particularly coming from STEM to humanities seems a particularly treacherous transition because so much about humans is based on premises that cold, logical STEM principles just aren’t aware of. That doesn’t mean we STEMs are stupid, we just don’t know just how much there is that we don’t know and would need to know before we can understand, let alone predict human behaviour.
I know I’ve found myself grossly misjudging human reactions in some case because humans are complex and there are so mamy premises and factors affecting individual behaviour and so many more for collective behaviour that they’re effectively non-deterministic and even predicting the probabilities requires such familiarity with the people or demographics, respectively.
All that is to say: Yes, I think so too. She’s well-educated, but not above tripping over the same, common stone that many smart people have stumbled on.
I have a relatively common “rare” condition and saw over 40 doctors while seeking a diagnosis. I can personally attest that most physicians range between not very bright to astoundingly stupid. You don’t have to be intelligent to become a physician, just dedicated with access to the right resources.
You are assuming physicians have to be smart or compassionate or understanding.
Look she’s a full of shit opportunist. A distraction for people who think they’re too moral to vote for corporate dems.
Link to interview: https://youtu.be/KGm2Fe4G3AA
Jill Stein on the Breakfast Club? Sounds like a must watch. I’m surprised she hasn’t made more appearances like this.
deleted by creator
I would have had to guess too, but I’m not in politics where that’s something I should know. What I do know and would have answered is “not the right proportion to the population”.
It’s actually a harder question than it seems… If you’re asking about the number of seats, that’s easy. 435 in the House, 100 in the Senate.
But if you ask about the PEOPLE, suddenly a lot harder due to deaths, resignations, and vacancies.
I legit couldn’t tell you the number of people right now without looking it up and I’d like to think I’m pretty plugged in.
I think you’re overthinking it. This was the actual reported exchange:
Later in the interview, Rye attempted to demonstrate the Green Party’s failure to build power from a grassroots level. She asked Stein how many members of the House of Representatives there were.
“How many total are there? What is it, 600, some number?” Stein said, before Rye set the record straight.
I don’t think anyone would fault you for saying there are 435 members of the house, especially because that number is also wrong (there are six additional non-voting members).
If she had answered more correctly than the number of voting seats I wouldn’t have a problem with it…
